mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re : [About the Filter Chain] Proposals
Date Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:01:29 GMT
Edouard De Oliveira wrote:
> Hi all,
>   
Hi Edouard,
> Been away for some time being very busy...
>   
Yeah, long time, no see !
> IMHO, "Release early, release often" should absolutely be our rule
>   
Yep. But we also have to release quality software :)
> As previously said MINA 2.0 as been longly awaited so i'd vote to release it as soon
as possible by
> removing all big changes maybe also being light on documenting parts we know would change
> (perhaps these docs can be fixed along the way trying to understand what has been done
internally).
>   
As I said, I will let this thread live for a couple of days, so that we 
get everyone opinion, then I think that we can launch a vote.
> We should fix the basic issues and keep the new ideas for an implementation in MINA 3.0.
>   

> One other thing i though we should improve is redesign internals to
> better handle handshake processes i.e without having to hack to buffer writes during
handshakes
> or prevent events like SESSION_OPENED from going down the chain while handshake has not

> finished by providing some kind of control on these.
>   
You mean, for the SSL Filter ? I don't know that much this filter, but 
from what I have seen, it seems to be pretty complicated. I suggest you 
draft something about what's wrong about the current handling, and then 
submit some proposals to improve this guy. This is the best way to get 
things discussed first, and done correctly. Also deciphering this part 
would help a lot those of us who don't know this part of the code (well, 
I guess that almost nobody knows about it, but of course, I wish I'm 
wrong :)
> Hope these lines put some light on the way
>   
Of course !

PS : une petite bière un de ces 4, histoire qu'on se rencontre entre 
apachiens parisiens  ?

>  Cordialement, Regards,
> -Edouard De Oliveira-
> http://tedorg.free.fr/en/main.php
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> De : Mark Webb <elihusmails@gmail.com>
> À : dev@mina.apache.org
> Envoyé le : Lundi, 3 Novembre 2008, 18h01mn 00s
> Objet : Re: [About the Filter Chain] Proposals
>
> I agree completely with all of Niklas's comments.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Mark Webb <elihusmails@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I think we should focus on getting 2.0 out the door.  We have been
>>>> working on it long enough and I think there are many people using it
>>>> in production or near-production systems.  Once we release, we will
>>>> probably get alot more feedback and can use that feedback to
>>>> enhance/fix the next version.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Big +1. We will find areas that we would like to improve during the
>>> foreseeable future (this change and ByteBuffer comes to mind).
>>>
>>>       
>> yop. And I don't see how we can include that in 2 weeks...
>>     
>>> Including all such changes will delay 2.0 for a long time, long enough
>>> for MINA to get behind other frameworks. Having a real release out
>>> will mean getting further feedback from users, so far I haven't seen a
>>> lot of users requesting this change nor the ByteBuffer change. I think
>>> we're too critical, the code is great.
>>>       
>> Well, IMHO, the code works. Saying that it's great is another story :) (but
>> this might just be a matter of taste ...)
>>
>> Anyway, I agree with what you say. We don't release fast enough. Atm,
>> regardless to the current code quality, and performance, I think MINA 2 is
>> usable, even if there are still some issues to fix. I will do some quick
>> perf tests on ADS with MINA 2 and give you some feedback soon.
>>
>>     
>>> Release early, release often.
>>> We do neither.
>>>
>>>       
>> eh ;)
>>     
>>>       
>>>> I would think that we should move right
>>>> towards 3.0.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I say go work on a branch (as already suggested) and see where that leads.
>>>
>>>       
>> There is a new branche for such experiment. Branching is certainly the way
>> to go, whatever we do regarding the release !
>>
>> I would like to let this thread go for a little bit (let's say a couple of
>> days), and then, I think we will have to vote : going for 2.0-RC or modify
>> the code massively.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> cordialement, regards,
>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>> www.iktek.com
>> directory.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>       
>   


-- 
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org



Mime
View raw message